[mkirkpatrick]

A breakdown of the word Light,Liquid
Infinite
Guided
Holistic
Thoughts
What is light and what is its nature,do we really understand what it is?Can light
flow like a liquid!Just think of molten lava,for instance,and that is evident on the
physical plane,there are many other planes as well! and can light become a solid
imprisoned in form,awaiting a sufficient stimulus to release it,some form of stimulus that will quicken its atomic,and sub-atomic matrix,allowing it to glow,
brighter and brighter,until if sufficient stimulus were available it would become
like a nuclear sun.If we have a good idea,a sudden Flash,<light>of inspiration
we often call this a bright Idea,again a referance to light.I think that maybe light and thought,are really just good old fashioned consciousness,expressed at various levels of Intention,we use the word so often maybe we lose sight of it,the light of reason,the light of truth,knowledge is light,and of course wisdom,better not forget that one.So what then is life? maybe like a dark flame.

kind regards michael.

[mkirkpatrick]

Do any of us really understand the true nature of light?I would doubt an affirmitive answer.Light can seem tobe so many things,but I suspect it is
really just one thing,masquerading as many?What do you think folks!


kind regards michael/

[michellemfry]

Light seems to be the embodiment of masslessness, yet maintaining energy enough to bestow it's bounty upon us all. Or something to that effect...

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by michellemfry Light seems to be the embodiment of masslessness, yet maintaining energy enough to bestow it's bounty upon us all. Or something to that effect...

You could be right there you know!

regards michael.

[socratus]

If we want to understand the reality,

we cannot speak "light", it is necessary to speak " quantum of light "

If quantum of light flies always rectilinearly c=1, it is mad one.

Is he really mad?

[baudrunner]

Do any of us really understand the true nature of light?

I understand the true nature of light, Michael. Light is not energy, it can only be quantized as the energy required to produce it. The phenomenon of light occurs when an atom is agitated, or "excited", and the conformity of its shape at equilibrium becomes momentarily distorted. "Photons" are not particles per se, and only exist for the briefest of moments. The effect of the atom's distortion is passed on to adjacent atoms by like polar repulsion and the photonic effect is subsequently reproduced by those atoms and so on in a chain event of reactions occurring throughout the medium. This continues until the source of excitation of the atoms is removed whereupon light ceases to be produced because the atoms in the medium are once more stabalised to their state at equilibrium. Light does not travel on its own, and what we commonly call the "speed of light" actually refers to the rate of atomic interaction, which is a constant for any medium.

Light cannot be made liquid or solid because it has no mass to begin with and therefore I theorize that it is actually nothing. The fact that it is "bright" is only a matter related to relative contextual appreciation.

You can read more about light here.

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by baudrunner I understand the true nature of light, Michael. Light is not energy, it can only be quantized as the energy required to produce it. The phenomenon of light occurs when an atom is agitated, or "excited", and the conformity of its shape at equilibrium becomes momentarily distorted. "Photons" are not particles per se, and only exist for the briefest of moments. The effect of the atom's distortion is passed on to adjacent atoms by like polar repulsion and the photonic effect is subsequently reproduced by those atoms and so on in a chain event of reactions occurring throughout the medium. This continues until the source of excitation of the atoms is removed whereupon light ceases to be produced because the atoms in the medium are once more stabalised to their state at equilibrium. Light does not travel on its own, and what we commonly call the "speed of light" actually refers to the rate of atomic interaction, which is a constant for any medium. Light cannot be made liquid or solid because it has no mass to begin with and therefore I theorize that it is actually nothing. The fact that it is "bright" is only a matter related to relative contextual appreciation. You can read more about light here.

My friend ifyou think that you understand the true natureof light,then I am the archbishop of Rome!
kind regards michael.

[baudrunner]

My friend ifyou think that you understand the true natureof light,then I am the archbishop of Rome!

Well, you are not the archbishop of Rome (unless you are, in which case I apologize, your excellency), and (but) I do indeed understand the true nature of light, which fact you might appreciate had you the same level of understanding as do I. My ideas must at first be read, then digested and then understood before any attempt is made to critique them, and then a proper critique must of needs be a positive one, giving evidence of the higher level of understanding that compels you to refute my theory such that my own understanding might be enhanced. If then your entire critique consists of nothing more than a superfluous "My friend if you think that you understand the true nature of light,then I am the archbishop of Rome!", then all the kind regards in the world cannot justify your emission, unscientifically supported that it is.

Read, Michael. At least, try to understand. I do indeed understand the nature of light, for, such as it is, that is the way that it is.

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by baudrunner Well, you are not the archbishop of Rome (unless you are, in which case I apologize, your excellency), and (but) I do indeed understand the true nature of light, which fact you might appreciate had you the same level of understanding as do I. My ideas must at first be read, then digested and then understood before any attempt is made to critique them, and then a proper critique must of needs be a positive one, giving evidence of the higher level of understanding that compels you to refute my theory such that my own understanding might be enhanced. If then your entire critique consists of nothing more than a superfluous "My friend if you think that you understand the true nature of light,then I am the archbishop of Rome!", then all the kind regards in the world cannot justify your emission, unscientifically supported that it is. Read, Michael. At least, try to understand. I do indeed understand the nature of light, for, such as it is, that is the way that it is.

I am used to dealing
with individuals who have bloated egos andvery high opinions of them selves
it is called concieted arrogance,although most I meet at work thinktheyare God you seem to know!!
kind regards michael.

[socratus]

Quantum of light is a particle and wave simultaneously.

Exact there is a simultaneity of space and time.

It is clear?

For me such explanation is unsatisfactory.

It just as to speak, that the logic information and

the senseless message are the same simultaneously.

socratus.